9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order rejecting their refund claim of service tax paid during the period 1-4-2004 to 31-8-2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant filed a refund claim on 24-12-2007 of service tax paid during the period June 2004 to December 2005 on storage and warehousing services rendered by M/s. IBP Ltd. on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said order specified 1-4-2004 as the effective date of merger. Apparently, the process of amalgamation took considerable time and the same has been effected only by order dated 30-4-2007. Such retrospective approval does pose certain practical difficulties. The effect of the order is that from 1-4-2004, IBP ceased to exist as a separate company. That being the case, the transaction between IBP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he effective date, which is 1-4-2004. Therefore, the original authority's order rejecting the refund claim holding that the effective date for amalgamation is from 2-5-2007, cannot be approved, in view of the above, the Appellate Commissioner's order appears legal and proper. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Technocraft Industries (I) Ltd. (cited supra) is also preferring to accept what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
